I thank the Member for his contribution, and for those parts of the White Paper that he has endorsed. Let me just take the last point first, really, which is, I don’t think it’s possible to do anything other than have a consistent approach to the way that we allocate responsibilities. If it’s right for councils to be able to decide whether they want a committee structure or a cabinet structure, if it’s right to allow councils to decide whether they want to be elected en bloc, or on a third, one third, one third basis, which this White Paper will allow, then it’s right to allow local councils themselves to take the decision on the form of election that best suits them. It’s a consistent thread that runs through the White Paper, and I want to maintain that consistency.

I agree with what Mr Bennett said about the paper being a balancing act; there are different tensions in it. I want to make sure that we do reinforce that meaningful link between local councils, councillors, and the populations that elect them. But, there again, the White Paper suggests that, while it is an obligation on those councillors to demonstrate that they have a continuous relationship with the people who have elected them, it suggests that there is a range of different ways in which a councillor could demonstrate that they are discharging that obligation, and the way that you might do it in a densely populated inner city part of Cardiff might be very different than if you were a councillor in a rural part of Powys or Ceredigion.

I’m not attracted to the idea of planning by referenda, but the White Paper does have a significant section in chapter 2 on some complex planning matters and this is a consultation, so Members who have different views and think that the system could work better in other ways, then of course I hope very much that they will take part in the consultation and allow those views to be explored further.